How to let NGOs work better

The world around is being misguided with the disinformation that the government of Pakistan is creating hurdles for INGOs.

by Ali Sukhanver-Oct 16, 2018

( October 16, 2018, Islamabad, Sri Lanka Guardian) In most of the cases, the whole game revolves around the intention; sometimes even very beneficial things become harmful if the brains using them are not positive in their approach. The philosophy behind giving the concept of NGOs is no doubt very positive and constructive but unfortunately NGOs prove a fatal threat to the existence and solidarity of a society if given a free-hand and unchecked liberty. The term Non-Governmental Organization was first coined in 1945 at the time of creation of the UN. Experts say that the UN itself is also an intergovernmental organization. According to the UN, any kind of private organization that is independent from government control can be termed an NGO, provided it is not-for-profit. All over the world, most of the NGOs play a very positive role in serving humanity but at the same time there are some NGOs which play a role otherwise. According to different survey reports, there are so many NGOs which are working for their own monetary benefits and so many are there which are involved in maneuvering of political situations and in brain-washing of the innocent people. Most of the NGOs involved in negative activities in different countries are usually of some international background.

‘Approximately 1.5 million NGOs operate in the United States,’ says a report published somewhere in 2017. In US, NGOs undertake a wide array of activities, including political advocacy on issues such as foreign policy, elections, the environment, healthcare, women’s rights, economic development, and many other issues. The US administration never creates any hurdle for any NGO if it follows the rules and regulations framed by the US government. However before getting registered in US every NGO has to pass through a strict process of security clearance; same is the case in other countries. Various surveillance departments keep an eye on the working of NGOs specifically when they are of some foreign origin. A few years back, the Russian government put a ban on a Washington-based international nongovernmental organization, named The National Endowment for Democracy. It was the ever first International NGO which was banned in Russia under a law against “undesirable”. In short NGOs could play a very positive role in the betterment of ailing humanity anywhere in any country but they become dangerously disastrous when they start interfering into the affairs directly linked with the security and existence of a country. Intelligent and wise are the countries which have introduced a set-pattern of rules and regulations for the working of NGOs particularly for the International NGOs.

In countries like US and UK, any INGO found trying to exceed the provided limits is simply banned for a limited time period or on permanent basis. Just to channelize the working of international NGOs in Pakistan, a policy framework was introduced by the Government of Pakistan in 2015. Before that there was no strict policy for the working of international NGOs in the country. So many agents of hostile countries succeeded in intruding here in the garb of international NGO workers particularly after 2008 earthquake and they really created serious problems for the country. To save the country from further complications, the government of Pakistan asked all INGOs present in Pakistan or desirous of operating in Pakistan to register them with the Ministry of Interior. More than 140 INGOs sent their online applications for their registration in Pakistan and after a very strict screening, 66 of them were approved and allowed to work that time. Among the already working INGOs more than 60 were found working against Pakistan’s security and solidarity. The Government of Pakistan sent notices to 49 of them, first in November 2017 and then in August 2018 and asked them to stop their operation in the country. Eighteen out of these forty-nine INGOs had their reservations regarding notices served to them, so they filed their appeals against the decision of the government of Pakistan. A special committee was constituted for the purpose of looking into the matter. After a very detailed and independent consideration on the matter, the appeals of all those 18 INGOs were regretted by the special-committee. Now the Interior Ministry has issued these INGOs final notices for winding up their operations in Pakistan within two months.

Instead of acting upon the directions of the government of Pakistan, some ‘well-wishers’ rather patrons of these INGOs have started an anti-Pakistan propaganda move at international level. The world around is being misguided with the disinformation that the government of Pakistan is creating hurdles for INGOs. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is creating no hurdles for anyone but it is the basic right of Pakistan to put a check on all those who are involved in any type of anti-Pakistan activity. A report on putting a check on the activities of INGOs says, “In the absence of a clear policy prior to 2015, some of the INGOs were successful in penetrating various sectors of society and accomplished agenda of their donors. These INGOs were observed endeavoring to influence our security, religious matters besides breaching social norms and customs. After formulation of policy frame work it was decided to bring all INGOs under scrutiny resulting in formulation of INGOs Policy – 2015.” But that doesn’t mean that Pakistan is discouraging the INGOs and stopping them from working in Pakistan. At present there are about 81 INGOs which are contributing positively in various welfare and development projects inside Pakistan and they are doing all this after getting permission from the government of Pakistan. These INGOs include 11 from Germany, 14 from UK and 20 from USA and so many from other countries. Certainly no country can allow any foreign organization spying of its strategic sites, collection of sensitive data illegally and running of fake immunization campaigns within its boundaries. If Pakistan is trying to bring things in a proper order, its efforts must be appreciated and admired.

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own

Mullikulam people’s struggle continues Navy says will not quit

OCT 14 2018

Mullikulam, bordering Mannar-Puttalam, adjoining the thickets of Wilpattu, was once a vibrant village with a school, post office, multipurpose cooperative outlet, agricultural lands and ponds by the sea where fishing was also thriving. Today it is dull and dry and the lives of the people there are hanging in the balance.

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan

The people’s lives have changed after their land and houses have been taken to establish the North-western Command Headquarters and Naval Institute (SLNS Barana) in Mullikulam.

The matter has been reported many times by the Media, the local and international human rights activists and organizations, but the struggle continues. The Navy base welcomes anyone as soon as one enters Mulllikulam village. A well-maintained flower garden in the compound partly fenced with sandbags and empty barrels looks neat and tidy.

Then the road diverts to a sandy road by a Navy compound fence. The visitor may come across Navy officials watching over outsiders driving by the sandy road that leads to the 150-year-old, The Our Lady of Assumption Church that is located in a free land space.

 Many families sleep on the corridors of the Church while some sleep inside the shacks put up in the jungle. There are children barefooted roaming about in the blazing hot sun staring at the strange people visiting them often.

Navy officials are wary of villagers telling their woes to visitors. They are aware then that these visitors would then walk into the thickets to see the shacks they live in. They are of the view that higher-ups have to give them the order to vacate the place. They cannot voice on behalf of the Tamils living in the open air nor voice against them.

That they are on a tour of duty there, is the plain truth. There is no clash whatsoever. Most of the villagers know many of the officials by their names and smile at each other. Villagers who live in the church premises rush to the fence pointing at the big houses, “That is my house.

 Can you see? This is the house where I was born and I lived, thereafter with my children, says Newton (57) who becomes emotional. Parish Priest, Mullikulam, Rev Fr. Lawrence Leon has become the caretaker of the villagers. He has been dealing with all issues that come to his notice and at many times he is as helpless as the others. He says that the Navy built 27 houses for families elsewhere but those are built using cheap material and the floors and walls are cracking and falling apart.

“We live surrounded by the Navy. They are right around us. That is why even settling in the released 77 acre-land is technically a problem. There is no free movement to return there. How can we move there when we live in the middle and right around us is the Navy controlled area?”, the priest tells us.

He also says that the fertile land of the people has been taken away and people were moved out from their original land. They also lament that nearly 6,000 acres of land they traditionally cultivated is no more left for them.  Upparu where they were once fishing is now under the Wild Life Department.

Refuge

Wild elephants walk right into the tents scaring the sleeping children and elderly who then run to the Church to take refuge.

Last week, due to heavy rains these people living in shacks tried to move to an elevated area to put up their tents but the Navy barred them.

Sahayawathi (58) says when the sea is close by we are asked to take a 5km walk to reach the sea in another area.

 “The sea is at the doorstep but because of the Navy camp, we are asked to take the route through the jungle to fish. It’s not easy to travel when you are penniless.”

When asked about the houses built by the Navy, they say at that time we were voiceless. “We were scared to talk about these matters when the last regime was in power. Now it’s good governance.
We see the President speaking to the people openly. We hear he is a good man. That is why we are urging openly to return the land that is ours and the Navy can take back what was given to us by force.”

With the new demarcation of the Wildlife sanctuary, fishing in Upparu is prohibited. Three of the fishermen were caught fishing and produced at the Puttalam Magistrate who imposed a fine of Rs 40,000 each.

Ruberaj Peiris, Bartholomeus Dias, Dilokshan were slapped with fines they are unable to pay. They say they did not know the rule of the jungle and urged the Wildlife Department to withdraw the case. “We will be cautious the next time.”

“It’s now about 18 months since the Navy Commander committed to releasing 100 acres of land “immediately” out of which 77 acres have been released. The same day, the Navy Commander had also promised to release 27 houses they are occupying at the end of last year. This has still not happened,” the Father tells us.

He goes on: “I kindly request to ensure that the Navy keeps its promises made 18 months ago and release at least the 27 houses and remaining 23 acres of land as soon as possible and also release the 300 acres the Navy had ‘earlier consented to be released’ by the end of this year.

“On 18th July 2018, in sheer desperation to get back to their beloved lands, about 80 families moved to live in some of the released lands, even though these were forested and bushy areas. They face danger from snakes and elephants, as well as dust, sun and rainfall.

There are electricity lines nearby where they live, but they have no electricity and these exacerbate nighttime dangers. They have to go a couple of kilometers simply to have a bath and are dependent on minimal toilet facilities at the nearby Church and school.

He also tells that during a meeting in Madhu Shrine on 29th July 2018, President Sirisena had committed to the Bishop of Mannar to expedite the release of land and houses in Mullikulam village, that is under the control of the Navy. More recently, we have seen the President’s public promise to release all lands by the end of the year.

 After 11 long years of displacement, people are hoping to resettle back in their own lands before Christmas and the New Year.

In 1990, approximately 100 of these families sought refuge in South India, while the remaining 300 (approx.) families were displaced and living in temporary shelters, or on rent or with host families/relatives. During the Ceasefire Agreement in 2002, many villagers returned to Mullikulam in 2003 and began their struggle to rebuild their lives, livelihoods and restore their destroyed houses and property.

Internally displaced

On 8 September 2007, the people of Mullikulam were forcibly removed from their village by the Army, with the resumption of the war.

 The villagers were once again internally displaced and the entire extent of the village was taken over by the Army overnight. The villagers were assured that they could return to their lands and houses within three days.

 Nearly 11 years after, the people of Mullikulam have yet to be allowed to return home and the status of return remains indefinite.

Fr. Lawrence says some have accepted alternate land but, still hope to return to their own village someday.

 They were resettled in areas near Mullikulam such as Kayakuli and Malankaadu despite the lack of basic facilities and infrastructure in those newly cleared forested areas. The majority of villagers, however, want the return of their own lands.

 

Reparations office can bind the nation together

By Jehan Perera-October 15, 2018, 9:10 pm 

Limping and internally conflicted as it be, the government of national unity once again showed its value when it got the Office for Reparations bill passed through Parliament. The margin of victory was narrow with just 59 MPs voting in favour and 43 against it. As both UNP and SLFP members of the government voted for the passage of the bill it can be believed that both President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe were in favour of the passage of the bill. They were joined by the TNA which also voted in favour of the bill. However, the voting figures show that most of the government MPs kept away from the vote. This was a shirking of their responsibility to take a stand on an issue of greatest importance to the national reconciliation process.

It is to the credit of the government that it continues with its post-war reconciliation process despite strong opposition from nationalists and party political rivals on both sides of the ethnic divide. This opposition is fuelled both by misinformation about the purpose of these reconciliation mechanisms and by the desire to gain partisan political advantage. It is to the credit of the members of the UNP and SLFP who did cast their votes that they were of one mind in ensuring that the bill was passed even while at loggerheads on most other matters of state. This alone highlights the value of the alliance and the need for it to continue beyond the present term of parliament.

Particularly praiseworthy was the vote of UNP members Sajith Premadasa and Navin Dissanayake in favour of the bill. Both of them had lost their fathers to LTTE suicide bombers when they were at the height of their political careers. Another who voted in favour of the bill was Field Marshall Sarath Fonseka who almost lost his life to an LTTE suicide bomber. The opposition critiqued the bill on account of the possibility of LTTE cadres obtaining reparations as a result of the establishment of the Office for Reparations. In voting in favour of the bill all three of these UNP members gave priority to victims of human rights violations during the war, and other conflicts that had taken place in the country, rather than to their own personal losses.

LTTE COMPENSATION

The Office for Reparations is the second of the transitional justice mechanisms to be set up following the October 2015 resolution of the UN Human Rights Council that the government decided to co-sponsor. The first was the Office of Missing Persons which was established in February this year. The acceptance of the targets set out in the resolution and intended to be achieved by the government have been controversial since the day the resolution was signed. The government has been denounced by the opposition for having betrayed the country and those who both fought and led the military operations that resulted in the defeat of the LTTE.

With few exceptions, such as Minister Mangala Samaraweera, the unfortunate failure of the government’s leaders to defend the co-sponsorship of the UNHRC resolution in October 2015 can be attributed to their lack of conviction and political courage with regard to the need for the ongoing reconciliation process. The non-participation of many government members in the vote on the Office for Reparations bill indicates their lack of conviction that it is a necessary measure in terms of the national reconciliation process. Without a system of ensuring reparations for past human rights violations and injuries stemming from such violations, the consequences of the war cannot be adequately dealt with.

Last weekend I was at a workshop that explained the concept of transitional justice and what it means for Sri Lanka to a group of community leaders and members of the Youth Parliament in the Ratnapura district. When the Office for Reparations was being discussed the same objection that was heard in parliament was heard on the seminar floor. Articulating themselves with considerable passion, some of the participants said that the Office for Reparations would be compensating LTTE members and their families and this was not an appropriate or just use of national resources. They pointed out that it was an inequitable use of government resources to use funds to compensate LTTE members and their families when the LTTE’s primary focus was on dividing the country. This echoes the objection of the political opposition to the Office for Reparations.

BIG MAJORITY

The legislation in the Office for Reparations Act does not specifically state that LTTE members and their families are to be recipients of reparations. The law states that persons who have suffered damage as a result of loss of life or damage to their property or persons in four contexts are those who are entitled to reparations. These are in the context of the war that took place in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, in connection with political unrest of civil disturbances, in the course of systemic gross violations of the rights of individuals, groups or communities of people in Sri Lanka or due to an enforced disappearance. This use of language does not exclude the LTTE members or their families from receiving reparations if they have suffered human rights violations.

Once the institution is set up and commissioners are appointed they will need to go into this issue. It is an axiom that those who seek justice need to have clean hands themselves. The commissioners will be able to look at what other countries have done in similar situations. At the workshop in Ratnapura, those who were conducting it took the position that reparations were for all Sri Lankans who were entitled to them. This was acceptable to the big majority of the workshop participants. This was seen when 15 out of 17 youth development officers who were taking part in the training said they were prepared to organized follow up workshops in their localities and explain the transitional justice process to the people they worked amongst.

This is an opportunity for the government, political parties and public and civic institutions that failed in the past to make amends for those failures. The Office for Reparations can provide a strong message of care to the conflict- affected populations living in all parts of the country due to the several conflicts that have taken place during the country’s post-independent history.  These include the recent anti-Muslim riots and the two JVP insurrections that took place in 1971 and again in 1988-89 in which much violence was perpetrated on innocent people. Even though most of the government MPs did not vote, by getting the Office for Reparations into the law, the government of national unity can still claim to represent the interests of a multi ethnic and plural nation better than the opposition who voted against the bill.

SRI LANKA: INCREASED CARE FOR VICTIMS OF CONFLICT NOW POSSIBLE, SAYS NATIONAL PEACE COUNCIL

16/10/2018

The passage of legislation establishing an Office for Reparations is another significant step forward in the transitional justice process aimed at healing the wounds of war and bringing a lasting solution to Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. In October 2015 the Government of Sri Lanka committed itself before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to embark upon a path of national reconciliation while meeting international standards. The government pledges included setting up an Office of Missing Persons, a Truth Commission, an Office for Reparations and a Special Court. The time period given to Sri Lanka comes to an end in March 2019.

The three-decade long war led to immense human suffering amongst all the ethnic communities. The National Peace Council welcomes the governmental initiative to establish the Office for Reparations. We are disappointed however, at the relatively low parliamentary turn out to ratify the law with it being ratified by a margin of only 59- 43 in a parliament of 225 members. It is a cause for regret that less than one half of the parliamentarians saw it as their duty to attend the parliamentary sitting and to cast their own vote. This lack of conviction amongst the parliamentarians, and their failure to vote in favour of the new institution may have been prompted by the campaign to falsely describe the Office for Reparations as a mechanism to give succour to the LTTE and thereby pave the way again for the division of the country. This is a false allegation and the people in general and victim population in particular need to be educated on this score.

The National Peace Council calls on the government, media and civil society to take special measures in this regard. This is an opportunity for the government, political parties and public and civic institutions that failed in the past to make amends for our failures. We believe that the Office for Reparations can provide a strong message of care to the conflict affected populations living in all parts of the country due to the several conflicts that have taken place during the country’s post-independent history. These include the recent anti Muslim riots and the two JVP insurrections that took place in 1971 and again in 1988-89 in which much violence was perpetrated on innocent people.

The legislation establishing the Office for Reparations leaves it to the new institution to set out the criteria regarding those who are eligible for reparations. As the four mechanisms incorporated in the transitional justice process are related to each other, the findings of the Office of Missing Persons which has already been established will provide one basis for reparations. There will also be a need to have consultation with the people who have been affected by conflict to identify eligibility criteria. We call on the government and international community to fully resource the Office for Reparations so that it may have the capacity to deliver the material and non-material dues to those affected by conflicts that successive governments failed to resolve though peaceful means.

Stop the madness We’re not your morning spit!

If we are intent on changing a gruesome system, we need to first realize that it is gruesome

2018-10-17

“The most dangerous man to any Government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the Government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~H. L. Mencken
Politicians have got used to using the public as if they own them. At the same time and in the same vein, the public also responds in a welcoming manner that beguiles a probing mind.

The response from the public to the timely use of rhetoric and sloganeering from politicians is being noted not only in the dirty and nauseatingly stinking slums in the urban and suburban sectors, but it is also palpably present in the cocktail circuits in the more sophisticated corners.

• Politicians have got used to using the public as if they own them
• Politicians treat the public as trash
• They live by it sometimes they die by it

Addressing the not-so-wealthy guys and gals in an exaggeratingly approachable way (Either Malli or Nangi depending on gender) does not speak to the character of the politician in question.

Ever since the entry of the ‘common man’ into the arena of governance, this bastardization of our societal ranks has been able to fundamentally dictate the behaviour and terms of our political dynamics; it has eaten into our fabric of movement without any checks and balances; it has been woven into the very vernacular of the politician’s daily tapestry of work.

But tragedy struck without our being aware of it. Its multi-faceted character is raising its very posture beyond all expectations; that despicable human quality of complacency has made the ordinary ‘commoner’ into a robot to be manipulated by even more despicable politicians.

This is the sad story of our life in Sri Lanka. The ‘common man’s’ politics has created a very uncommon man in the end.

It’s evident in every corner of the country; whether in the instance in which the entry of his son or daughter into a respectable school; or on the occasion of a graduate teacher’s transfer from one school to another; or when the permit for a felling of a tree in his own backyard or in the case of a meagre job of a driver in a Government department, the same ugly beast of bribery and corruption is threatening to devour the ‘common man’.

Politicians did not begin their journey to this abyss of bribery and corruption with the entry of the ‘common man’, but his entry did cause the journey to be accelerated and much more wicked and unpleasant.

The consequences of change into this novel phase of social evolution are being manifest now in exponential sequence.

The appearance of a halt to its relentless trudge is delusional. In the long journey of human endeavour, the history of a nation is too short even to mention as a footnote. Nations come to life with inspirational leadership and ruthless execution of warfare against those who oppose the birth of new nations. Sri Lanka as a new nation came into being in the mid nineteen hundreds.

Yet, long before the seafaring adventurers Portuguese landed on our shores in 1505, Ceylon existed as a Monarch-nation, sometimes divided and sometimes as a single nation-country.

However, Buddhism as a religion was accepted as the leading and most dominant religion our Kings and Queens faithfully followed and made our State as a single Buddhist religious polity, making it look like a Theocracy.

This dependence on a single exclusive religion, Buddhism, and making it the official state religion has caused many a modern day liberal to think that Buddhism, being given exclusive and superior status in the context of constitutional acceptance, is a violation of basic fair play.

And the entry of SWRD Bandaranaike’s utterly short-sighted policies of Sinhala-only as the official language of the State has quadrupled the ill-effects of such nihilistic political adventures.
Into this array of political adventures of SWRD enters the ‘common man’.

The common man is not condemned because of his socio-economic status. Socio-economic status of man is determined by so many factors amongst which most domineering is the prevailing material conditions in the country at the time.

However, Sri Lanka has been enjoying free education since 1946. This allowed each and every school-going age child to be educated at no cost to the parents of the child and ‘free education’, as it was called, did not associate itself with the necessary educational infrastructure. This lack of infrastructure, especially in the rural districts where more than 70% of our population lived, told another story about our ‘free education’.

Lack of English teachers in the rural schools made this tale even more mournful. Schools in major city centres such as Colombo, Jaffna, Kandy, and Galle were saturated with top-class English, Mathematics and Science teachers. They enjoyed privileged status with almost all leading schools in the country and were located in those city centres. The resulting discriminatory grading of schools led to these rural schools producing their best children to enter the Universities. But they produced Arts graduates without any knowledge of English and had a marked disadvantage in the employment market. Whereas those who studied in the leading schools in the city centres relished pre-eminence purely because of their ease with which they conversed and managed their day-to-day business of school-going and extra-curricular activities such as cricket, tennis and other sports.

The ‘common man’s’ child did not avail himself or herself of these luxury elements of ‘free education’. On the other hand the ‘common man’s’ lethargy and over-dependence on Government handouts so promised and never delivered by the cunning and diabolical politicians paved the way for an utterly disparate system of ‘free education’ which continued to produce not educated men and women but book-worms whose understanding of the developing marketplace was minimal and was pathetically below expectations.

When SWRD’s so-called revolution introduced so many ‘common men and women’ into politics mainly as a political ‘gundu’ (bait) and not as a result of a puritanical intention of giving him a place in the sun, the ‘common man’ took the stick by the wrong end. The House of Parliament used to preside over some of the best oratorical and thoughtful exchange of ideas and ideals.

With the ominous entry of the ‘common man,’ it instantly transformed itself into a House of irritating and cantankerous men and women of half or uneducated kind.

The ‘common man’ is not condemned because of his socio-economic status. Nor is he judged for his family background. But his refusal to learn from the prevailing discriminatory systems and introduce meaningful and positive changes into the system is open for criticism and condemnation.

When those who have refused to learn have entered politics for its lure of power and an opportunity to earn money has corrupted the uneducated mind of the ‘common man’-politician.

This convoluted context of socio-political reality made the well-intentioned ‘uncommon’ politician feel bad for doing what’s right. Bandaranaike’s policies and principles made the country’s ‘common good’ turn into thorns in the eyes of the public, 80% of whom were ‘common men and women’.
Whichever way one looks, it’s not a good sight. The present-day corruption of all layers of Government, beginning from politician down to Ministry officials, and grama niladharis is a dangerous symptom of that malady.

Politicians of both sides, Government and opposition, have entered politics not for the noble cause of ‘service of man’ but for self-obsession and material enrichment.

That pathetic characteristic of humanity has devoured our politicians and there doesn’t seem to be a way out. They have come to treat the public as trash and their spit on the face of a gullible voter is welcomed with a docile demeanour and complacency.

If we are intent upon changing this gruesome system, we need to first realize that it is gruesome and unwelcome.

Educating the masses towards a more amenable and positive way of socio-political life is difficult and time-consuming. There will never be a perfect society. Such dreams are essentially utopian and far too optimistic. Yet an effort towards improvement of men and women by providing a fundamental structure to enable man to develop himself without the expectation of Government handouts and political patronage and defence of that structure is of utmost significance and dispensation of justice and execution of a work plan that would benefit the public even at the expense of the super-rich class of commission-merchants and politico-dealers is a must in the current context.

Yet, all these measures and dreamlike policies could be blindsided by a single stroke of a politician’s pen. Corruption has gone into the marrow of our politicians.

They live by it sometimes they die by it. But the public simply cannot wait any longer without making a hearable noise. The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and its able speakers have performed admirably well in the current circumstances but their history is brimming with terror, murder and mayhem.

Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Handunhetti alone cannot do this job and it is essential that they, the JVP, support a common candidate at the next Presidential Elections with the support of all civil societies and the UNP.

The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) are beyond repair. They are the ones who are mainly responsible for this mess and their intentions are well recorded in our post-Independence history. Let’s leave them there, as an unprintable footnote in history.

The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

Political Optics: What The Appointment Of A New Chief Justice Means For The Country

By Rasika Jayakody –OCTOBER 16, 2018

Rasika Jayakody

The appointment of the new Chief Justice Nalin Perera, a career judge who has served in the judiciary for over 30 years, provides a snapshot of the dynamics within Sri Lanka’s major political powers.

It offers a glimpse into President Maithripala Sirisena’s thought process, amid vigorous calls by his allies to form a Caretaker Government, replacing the current Prime Minister with former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

The 64-year-old new Chief Justice has maintained a relatively low profile thus far. Before sending his name to the Constitutional Council, President Sirisena , considered with several other high-profile names, including those of Attorney General Jayantha Jayasuriya and Eva Wanasundara, the senior-most judge in the current Supreme Court.

In fact, two separate groups were strongly backing both Jayasuriya and Wanasundara, for two completely different reasons. The UNP, led by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, was in favour of Attorney General Jayasuriya as the latter was a politically “safer option” in comparison to other candidates in the fray. Jayasuriya, a smooth and meticulous operator, walked a tightrope when he questioned the Prime Minister after he made his “voluntary statement” before the Bond Commission in November, last year. In choosing to back Jayasuriya for the post of the 46th Chief Justice, the UNP was signalling its unflinching confidence in the man.

Jayasuriya, however, did not earn the support of the UNP at the expense of President Sirisena’s goodwill. His loyalty to Sirisena was manifest in the AG’s submission to the Supreme Court, when the President sought opinion on whether, in terms of provisions of the Constitution, he had an impediment to continuing in the office of President for a period of 6 years from 9th January 2015.

Much to the surprise of many good governance activists, Jayasuriya presented asubmission to the Supreme Court that said the incumbent President was elected by the people for a term of 6 years, and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which reduced the term to five years, was operative after he was elected. As later proven by the Supreme Court’s opinion on the matter, Jayasuriya’s submissions sharply contravened the provisions of the 19th Amendment, and it was all too evident that the Attorney General was pandering to the President’s political whims.

Given this history and strong support-base on both sides, many initially believed that Jayasuriya would be the hot favourite for the spot under Sirisena.

Then emerged Eva Wanasundara, who is largely supported by a section of the SLFP, the SLPP and the Rajapaksa family. As Wanasundara’s name surfaced at a time when the President was cosying up to the Rajapaksa family, speculation was rife that she stood a strong chance of becoming the country’s second female Chief Justice.

Wanasundara, in an interview with the ‘Deshaya’ newspaper in July 2014, publicly admitted that former President Mahinda Rajapaksa was one of her closest friends during her ‘Law College Days’.

“I was suddenly called up to Temple Trees by President Rajapaksa. He just asked me to drop by at Temple Trees on my way home after work. I was surprised at this gesture but went to meet the President nevertheless. Upon greeting me, the President said he was going to appoint me a Supreme Court judge and asked if I had any concerns. I was shocked by the sudden announcement. At the same time, I felt so happy as I always wanted to become a judge and suddenly, the person in front me was offering exactly what I wanted,” she also said during the interview.

Read More

The fate of the rupee: Time to stop playing the ‘blame-excuse-blame games’

The rupee’s historical tragedy

Monday, 15 October 2018 

As I have presented in a previous article titled ‘Rupee’s Sad Destiny of One-way Journey to Depreciation’ (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/Rupee-s-sad-destiny-of-one-way-journey-to-depreciation/4-654254), it has been a historical tragedy that the rupee has fallen in value ever since the country had gained independence in 1948. At that time, the rupee was exchanged for Rs 3.32 per US dollar. In terms of dollars, a rupee was worth 30 US cents. This was more or less equal to the exchange rate between the US dollar and the Singapore dollar that amounted to 33 US cents. Under the fixed exchange rate system that had been adopted by Sri Lanka till late 1977, this rate was devalued by the government from time to time based in the devalued Sterling Pound rate or the scarcity of foreign exchange reserves locally or both. 

Accordingly, by 1977, the rupee/dollar rate had been devalued to Rs 8.41 per dollar or 12 US cents per rupee. When one adds the 65% Foreign Exchange Entitlement Certificate or FEEC rate to the official exchange rate, the rupee was effectively sold at Rs 13.88 per dollar or 7 US cents per rupee. In November 1977, this rate was adjusted to Rs 15.56 per dollar or 6 US cents per rupee before Sri Lanka chose to go for a flexible exchange rate system. 

Since then, the rupee continued to fall in the market, eventually reaching a level of Rs 172 per dollar in early October 2018. This was, in dollar terms, equal to about a half of a US cent. Thus, the rupee which was traded for 30 US cents in 1948 has now descended to the status of a worthless currency. Figure 1 presents this one way journey of the rupee, both in rupees to dollar and dollars to rupee terms, during 1950-October 2018.

Singapore’s problem is how to prevent appreciation of currency

The Singapore dollar, which started almost at the same level with Ceylon rupee in 1948, has completed a journey in the opposite direction. Last week, its value was recorded at 73 US cents per Singapore dollar, up from 33 US cents in 1948.

But unlike Sri Lanka, Singapore has been blessed with a continuing increase in productivity, enabling it to allow the SGD to appreciate in the market without losing its global competitive edge. However, its problem has been how to prevent the SGD from appreciating beyond what is permissible by improvements in productivity. Hence, to slow down the appreciation and allow only a ‘modest and gradual’ rise, the country’s Monetary Authority had in April 2018 slightly tightened the band within which the currency is allowed to float in the market (see: https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/mas-to-tighten-singdollar-policy-allowing-for-modest-and-gradual-appreciation ). Thus, the post-independence experience with respect to economic performance and achievement of Singapore and Sri Lanka has been a way apart from each other. 

Governments’ deficit spending is the root cause

All past governments in Sri Lanka, irrespective of their political complexion, have to take responsibility for the country’s dismal economic performance that has led to the depreciation of the rupee in the market. Of course, Sri Lanka did not stay put where it started in 1948. 

There have been achievements, but all of them had been small gains compared to what other successful nations had attained. Sri Lanka’s political leadership, like many other newly independent countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, had harboured obsessive faith in the Government and Government financing for bringing quick prosperity to the people. Hence, in the whole of the post-independence period, except in 1954 and 1955, the Government was in the wont of spending more than what it earned – a budgetary practice known as deficit financing – by tapping a combination of different funding sources. They constituted borrowing from all sources – domestic private and banking sectors, on one side, and foreigners, on the other – to fill the budget gap. Thus, the country’s budget deficit in some years was as high as 19% of the total output, known as the Gross Domestic Product or GDP, but on average it stood at 7% of GDP, still an unmanageable level. But the average real economic growth that was recorded during the whole of the post-independence period amounted only to 4.4%, pretty much below the required rate of 8% to make Sri Lanka a rich nation within a generation. 

According to the World Bank classifications, Sri Lanka was able to move from a poor country to a lower middle income country only in 1997, some 50 years after the independence. It is still continuing as a lower middle income country after 20 years, though it is now on the threshold of moving to the next higher category, an upper middle income country. 

All the evidence today shows that it has been snared in what is known as ‘the middle income trap’, a situation in which it is unable to become a rich country soon, due to the absence of modern technology, and compete with its peers due to increased labour costs back at home. What has actually brought in is an undesired outcome. That is, Sri Lanka’s economy has bloated in rupee terms beyond its ability to maintain self-sustenance. 

All Ministers of Finance in the past who have contributed to the bloating of the economy through deficit financing are entitled to shout only one desperate call. That is, ‘Honey, I Blew up the Kid’ like Wayne Szalinski in Randal Kleiser’s movie, by the same title. Szalinski’s work, leading to the creation of a monster out of an innocent kid in the movie, was not intentional but accidental. Similarly, the creation of a monster economy with a voracious appetite for filling a bloated belly by Ministers of Finance was also not intentional but consequential.

Getting into a blame game 

The ex-Governor of the Central Bank, Ajith Nivard Cabraal, in an article titled ‘Govt, CB have abdicated the vital statutory duty by not being able to deal with rupee depreciation (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/Govt---CB-have-abdicated-vital-statutory-duty-by-not-being-able-to-deal-with-rupee-depreciation/4-664247) had presented a statistical table with data from 1977 to the latest with Central Bank intervention in the market to prevent depreciation of the rupee. 

Despite this, the rupee has depreciated from Rs 8.83 per dollar in late 1976 to Rs 171 per dollar at end September 2018. In fact, as I have presented above, the rupee depreciation began much earlier, from the date on which Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. His point has been that in the period from 2006 to 2014 during which he had been the Governor, the rupee depreciated by about Rs 29 per dollar or 3% on average a year with only sales from the Central Bank reserves amounting only to $ 2.3 billion on a net basis. Though in 2011-2, CB had sold $ 4 billion to protect the rupee, the net sales during that period have been reduced to $ 2.3 billion because of a mega net purchase of $ 2.3 billion in 2009, basically from the inflows to the government securities market after that market was open to foreigners. His point was that after he left the Bank in the period from 2015 to end September 2018, the Bank has sold in the market on a net basis $ 2.5 billion but the rupee had depreciated by Rs 40 per dollar or by 9% per annum on average. This net sale is made up of a mega sale done by the Central Bank in the period prior to the General Elections in August 2015, amounting to $ 3.4 billion, and a further sale of $ 1.9 billion in 2016. But just like Cabraal’s time, the present management of the Central Bank too has purchased from the market on a net basis $ 1.7 billion in 2017, augmenting the reserves.

Continuation of the blame game 

Now, this is playing a blame game that, during his time, both the depreciation of the rupee and the net sale from the foreign exchange reserves were lower than the period since he had left the Central Bank. But still, the rupee depreciated and reserves were lost. However, the Central Bank, in a defensive mood, had replied to Cabraal (available at: http://www.ft.lk/opinion/Rupee-depreciation--Central-Bank-responds-on--misleading--article/14-664390), pointing out that the Bank had in the past done its best to stabilise the currency, given the constraints of unfavourable forces working against both the rupee and Bank’s attempt at providing stability to the exchange rate. Its main argument has been that in the current period, it cannot and should not repeat the mega interventions done in the past, namely, in 2011/12 and 2015, in view of the overwhelming debt repayment obligations which have fallen on the country due to its liberal past external borrowings. According to the Ministry of Finance, these obligations are too critical to be ignored, especially in 2019 and 2020. This has led to the continuation of the blame game, and Cabraal has in a later intervention has questioned the Central Bank’s wisdom of stabilising the rupee, whether it would fall to Rs 200 or Rs 250 or Rs 300 (available at: http://www.ft.lk/columns/At-what-value-of-the-rupee-will-Central-Bank-think-it-needs-to-stop-the-depreciation--200--250--300-/4-664555). These blame-excuse-blame games will not help the rupee or the economy and, therefore, should be stopped in order to find a permanent solution to rupee’s sad one way journey to depreciation, as I have argued in my previous article.

Permanent solution is the Government’s responsibility

A Central Bank can do very little to stabilise a currency, if the economy outside the bank is not supportive to its action. The currency depreciation is only a symptom of a graver malaise and not the root cause. Hence, a Central Bank could keep a currency at a stable level for a short period through its monetary, foreign exchange, and market intervention policies. Once a currency is stabilised at a certain level, it is up to the government in power to take long term permanent action to bring in a lasting stability. This was exactly what Singapore did, by increasing productivity through the introduction of new technology and promoting competitiveness at all levels in the economy. 

Financial war fought by the Central Bank

Every Central Bank Governor is working under this constraint, and can only advise the political leadership what it should do. As the proverb says, he can take the horse to the water but he cannot make it drink it. In the severe foreign exchange crisis which the country faced during 2007 to 2009, when the country was at the height of the war with LTTE, there was a separate financial war fought by the Central Bank along with the war fought by soldiers in the battlefront. Sri Lanka lacked weapons, and China, its main weapon supplier, extended only 3 months’ credit to the country. The Bank of Ceylon had to honour the letters of credit on the due dates, and the Central Bank had to provide it with dollars. The country had to save its foreign exchange to meet this commitment on a priority basis, just like the present Governor, Indrajit Coomaraswamy, has to save the scarce foreign reserves for meeting debt repayment obligations.

Governor Cabraal’s creditable work 

Cabraal should be given credit for managing that situation effectively, thereby facilitating a continuous flow of weapons to the country for soldiers in the field to move the war to a finish. I recall how he went around the world in 2007, canvassing for investments by foreign investors when the first sovereign bond issue of just $ 500 million was offered by the Government. That was peanuts in today’s context, but it was done against a very powerful force both within and outside the country. But that was not sufficient and foreign exchange requirements were alarmingly high. He dispatched himself to Libya to seek support from Mohammed Gaddafi, supposed to be a friend of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. But he returned empty-handed. 

Then, he sent teams of senior Central Bank officers to major groups of countries to solicit support of the Sri Lankan diaspora, who were thought to be in readiness to give Sri Lanka much-needed dollars. I led the team to Australia and New Zealand, met Sri Lankans living in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Wellington, and solicited support from them. They were sympathetic but demanded the pound of flesh from the Government in the form of a waiver of the fees charged for dual citizenships, admission to superior schools, and duty free vehicles for their relatives back at home. It was, thus, a failure. 

Devoid of a source, Cabraal turned to IMF, which was sitting on the request due to the pressure from those who were sympathetic to the LTTE. The tables were turned only after the Indian Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee came forward, and issued a bold statement that if IMF did not approve of the loan sought by Sri Lanka, India would make available the needed funds to that country in need. Hence, it is not cricket for Cabraal to get into a blame game now, and find fault with the present management of the Central Bank.

Unreasonable past Governors

Central Bank Governors in the past have been unreasonable at times, but when sense was put to them, they came forward to support and protect that institution. 

In 1996, immediately after the horrendous bomb blast in front of the Bank building, the late H N S Karunatilake began a blame game in public that the then-Governor A S Jayawardena had failed to protect the bank against a possible LTTE attack. In fact, he very correctly gave credit to himself that the Bank was saved from total destruction by the iron barrier he had constructed at the entrance, popularly nicknamed Karunatilake Barrier. When the late A S Jayawardena came on TV and said that at that instance of a national tragedy, all other Central Banks and previous Governors had come to the Bank’s support, Karunatilake did not mutter it again. 

Then, after Cabraal became Governor in 2006, Karunatilake once again went into the blame game, criticising him even personally. That was put to a stop when Cabraal used his superior public relation skills to invite all previous Governors to a luncheon meeting at the Bank, and explained the true situation facing the country at that time.

High GDP and low exports are the cause of depreciation

Cabraal has another reason to support the present management of the Central Bank. That is because the gravity of the rupee problem is rooted to the period from 2006 to 2014, when Sri Lanka had bloated its economy in rupee terms, and paid scanty attention to promoting exports or eliminating the deficit in the current account. As shown in Graph 2, after 2006, GDP has grown phenomenally but exports have remained stagnant. 

This was due to the bloating of GDP in rupee terms and keeping the rupee/dollar rate overvalued to present a high growth in that number. This is shown by Graph 3, in which the exports as a percentage of GDP has started falling since around 2002, while the current account deficit has remained more or less at the same level. 

Hence, what the present Central Bank management is reaping today is what Sri Lanka had sown in the past. This is, therefore, a time for all those who have an interest in the economy to get together and find a lasting solution to its ailments, without hurling accusations at each other. 

Need is painful shrinking of spending by all

The solution involves getting the Government and the people to shrink their top spending on a priority basis. No country can think of stabilising its currency if it continues with a high deficit in the current account unabatedly.  Perhaps, it is better if all the parties in the present blame game get together and shout, as in a previous Szalinski movie, ‘Honey, I have shrunk the kids’. It is painful but something that must necessarily be done.

(W A Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com)

Politics of Caretaker Government

Prof. M. O. A. De Zoysa-Wednesday, October 17, 2018

The internal conflicts between the two main partners of the current Yahapalana government e.g. the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party seem to be exacerbating day by day. As reported in the media, the ongoing overt discussions between the incumbent President Maithripala Sirisena and the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa about establishing a Caretaker Government by expelling the present government headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe shows the seriousness of the rift between two main coalition partners. It is also apt to state that this conflict has grown to such extremes that an amicable settlement between the two parties looks a distant reality. It also shows the President Maithripala Sirisena’s strong resentment in continuing with the political marriage between the UNP and the SLFP.

What is more problematic is the non-disclosure of facts relating to the conflict by the parties privy to the conflict. As a result, this has led the public to arrive at various conclusions based on their own imaginary assumptions. Needless to say that this situation is detrimental to the country’s political health as well as to the health of the parties involved in the power struggle aiming at toppling the Yahapalana government and bringing about a new Caretaker Government.
An important question arises in this context with regard to the establishment of a Caretaker Government and whether a Caretaker Government can be made into a political reality. In other words is it a viable political idea that can be achieved in the current political context of the country or is it a mere political utopia that can be never achieved. In order to seek an answer to this question it is necessary to pay attention to two things. First thing is to understand what a Caretaker Government means, and second thing is to understand the relative power positions of political parties that try to muster in a Caretaker Government.

The Caretaker Government is a political tradition associated with the Westminster model of government or so called Cabinet form of government. According to the established norms, traditions and practices a Caretaker Government can be formed under two special instances. First instance is where incumbent government - the Prime Minister and the Cabinet - is removed from office by passing a no confidence motion in the House of Representatives to which the government is bound to be held responsible. Second is the dissolution of the House of Representatives by the nominal executive on the advice of the Prime Minister of the incumbent government and go for a general election to elect a new government. Under the first instance, the nominal executive has two options. First is to appoint new permanent government, e.g. a new Prime Minister and a cabinet to govern the country for the balance period until the next general election is held.

Second option is to dissolve the House of Representatives and go for a fresh general election giving the chance for the public to elect new government on their own wish. Yet even under this situation a government must be appointed for the interim period e.g. that is the period between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the conclusion of the general election and the formation of a new government.

The government appointed for the interim period may either be the old government which was in power or a totally new government with a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet. The role of the nominal executive in this regard is vital as he/she has the power to decide the form of government. Whatever the nature of the government is, whether it is old or new, under the Westminster model it is generally called as a Caretaker Government. Under the second instance mentioned above, when the House of Representatives is dissolved there is no option to appoint a permanent government and the only option available is to appoint a Caretaker Government. Once again this government also could be either old or new depending on what is decided by the nominal executive. But the usual practice has been to retain the old government without inflicting any serious changes or by doing minor changes.

Characteristics

Based on the above discussion a number of conclusions can be drawn with regard to the so called Caretaker Government. Firstly, it is a fundamental political phenomenon associated only with the cabinet form of government and not with the Presidential or Semi-Presidential system of governments. (It is important to keep in mind that the present governmental system in Sri Lanka is a Semi-Presidential system.) Secondly, the dissolution of the House of Representatives is a must to form a Caretaker Government. Thirdly, a Caretaker Government is appointed only for a short period and only on a temporary basis. The usual period is the period between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the election of a new government by a fresh general election. This may be limited to not less than one month and not more than two months.

Fourthly, since the Caretaker Government is not a permanent government it is charged with only handling day-to-day routine functions of the government. Hence it is not expected to make serious public policy formulations affecting the general political, economic and social body of the country. Fifthly, the main function assigned to the Caretaker Government is to hold the general election on an independent, neutral and fair basis. For this, it is expected that the public service and police service should be made totally neutral and this is another important function assigned to the Caretaker Government. Sixthly, a Caretaker Government is not a government formed with an objective of saving the country from a severe political, economic or social crisis as it is a government formed for the ‘in between period’ on a temporary basis with very limited number of functions assigned. Seventhly, once the election is held and a new government is formed, the Caretaker Government will be dissolved or it will naturally fade away.

Pseudo-Caretaker Government

Mentioned above are the general characteristics associated with the Caretaker Government. Can such a form of government be formed in Sri Lanka under the existing political context? It can be said that it is not an easy thing under the current constitutional framework. Firstly, it can be said that the concept of a Caretaker Government does not go hand in hand with the existing Semi-Presidential system of government.

Establishment of a Caretaker Government involves either appointing a totally new government or to retain the incumbent government until a new government is formed on the basis of a new general election. So if a new Caretaker Government is to be made, it is necessary to remove whole incumbent government from power. The removal of the whole government in the Sri Lankan context means the President, Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Those who are advocating the Caretaker Government have forgotten the fact that the President is part and parcel of the government created under the 1978 Constitution. But those who argue for a Caretaker Government do not talk about removing the President and their attempt is to keep the President untouched and remove only the Prime Minister and other Ministers. It can be said that this notion is politically wrong and does not go together with the concept of the Caretaker Government. If a Caretaker Government is created leaving this factor behind, it would definitely be a pseudo-Caretaker Government and such a government cannot claim due legitimacy to remain in power and to rule the country even for a short period.

Even to create such a pseudo-Caretaker Government, it is necessary to expel the Prime Minister and the Cabinet or to dissolve the incumbent Parliament by a Presidential decree. To remove the Prime Minister and the Cabinet it is necessary to adopt a no-confidence motion in the Parliament with the support of 113 members. Can President Maithripala Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa muster this number under the prevailing strengths of political parties representing the Parliament? The proponents of the Caretaker Government currently have only 92 members. Twenty three out of these belong to the SLFP headed by the President Maithripala Sirisena and these 23 are also members of the current government.

The Joint Opposition has 54 members and 15 others belong to the breakaway faction of the government who voted against the Prime Minister when the no-confidence motion was put forth against him. So if a no-confidence motion is to be brought about by the proponents of a Caretaker Government they need to source additional 21 votes from other parties representing the Parliament. Under the prevailing political scenario of the country it appears that it is not an easy task.

Furthermore, a no-confidence motion will not be limited only to the Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and other UNP ministers. It will also equally affect the SLFP ministers and if the no-confidence motion is adopted they also have to resign from their portfolios. So, a decision to support the no-confidence motion might and can boomerang against the SLFP ministers in no time and it is doubtful that they would agree to support a motion that will perhaps destroy their political career.

If the case is as such, the only option available to the proponents of the Caretaker Government is to dissolve the Parliament by a Presidential decree and then attempt to appoint a fresh Caretaker Government. But within the provisions of the Constitution, this also cannot be done as the President has no power to dissolve a newly elected Parliament until it completes four and half year’s duration since its inception. The current Parliament completes this mandatory period in January 2020. Even if the current President is re-elected to office in 2020 and then dissolves the Parliament in February 2020 and appoints a Caretaker Government immediately, that government can only be in power for one or two months as the general election has to be held within one month of the dissolution of the Parliament. Again, it becomes clear that the second option available to create a Caretaker Government too is unrealistic.

Unrealistic

From all these, it is apt to state the political tactics of the proponents of a Caretaker Government are absolutely unrealistic, imaginary and utopian. Politicians mostly take decisions on imaginary political grounds which are far detached from realistic politics. As far as the Sri Lankan Constitutional context is concerned it appears that the idea of Caretaker Government is not only theoretically wrong, but also it is an utopian idea that can be never realized. Therefore, everyone should clearly understand the current political situation and know that the current government headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe cannot be removed through such imaginary and utopian political means.

Demons in Paradise: Capturing the Conversation

Featured image courtesy the Hollywood Reporter

GROUNDVIEWS-on 10/16/2018

On October 2, Director of the documentary film “Demons in Paradise” Jude Ratnam issued a press release, noting that his documentary had been pulled from the programme of the Jaffna International Cinema Festival.

Ratnam wrote to the Festival Director requesting an explanation, having heard that the movie was removed upon request from ‘the community’.

“Demons in Paradise” begins with the director’s personal memory of leaving Colombo by train in July 1983. Ratnam was 5.

“I didn’t know that we were fleeing Colombo as refugees” he says.

Years later, Ratnam takes the same train as an adult, reflecting on that day and the conflict that followed. Ratnam’s directorial debut was premiered at the Cannes International Festival, and was subsequently screened at several locations in Colombo. Rather than focusing on what was expected – the violence between the military and a terrorist group, and the resulting fractures created between ethnicities – Ratnam also attempts to delve into the violence between the different rebel groups. Perhaps the most interesting part of the film occurs when a group of former militants sits around a flickering fire, recalling violence wrought between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and militant group Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO).

In a piece in the Hindustan Times, it was said that Ratnam was worried at how the movie would be perceived by the Tamil community. Although acknowledging the suffering of the Tamil community, Ratnam was ‘shattering a taboo’, the Hindustan Times posited, by interrogating the violence perpetrated by the LTTE.

Following its debut, ‘Demons in Paradise’ received some criticism on framing. The Hollywood Reporter notes that the film is very much ‘eye-level’ i.e. a personal viewpoint of the conflict, and often glosses over important details that a local viewer would intuitively understand, but that would be missed by a foreigner. Many of the scenes where subjects relived memories of the conflict were physically re-enacted, which while meant to add visual drama, ended up feeling forced, as the review above notes. These finer points however, were lost in the ensuing discussion, especially so due to a BBC interview where Ratnam controversially said that he ‘wanted [the war] to end… even if my own people had to be killed’.

The conversations on Twitter in reaction to the film being pulled from the Festival line-up revealed a range of perspectives.

Groundviews believes the conversation is an important one, and one worth preserving. We used Twitter’s ‘Moments’ feature, to capture some of the discussion.

Click here to view them, or scroll below.

Demons in Paradise